What did JFK Mean By These Words?
DriftingByTheStorm
Posts: 8,684
Okay.
I just had a PM convo with someone regarding JFK, and it caused me to bring up the following statement by JFK, which was on the topic of the opinion in some circles regarding Kennedy's desire to get steel companies to quit colluding to raise the price of steel, which he thought ran contrary to public interest ...
anyhow, although the topic at hand was really, "should the president be involved in a fight with business over prices", I thought the words used in his speech were of interest, and I here question his intended meaning:
"Now I know there are some people who say that this isn't any business of the President of the United States ... and [fumbles] who believe that the President of the United States should be the HONORARY CHAIRMAN OF A GREAT FRATERNAL ORGANIZATION, AND CONFINE HIMSELF TO CEREMONIAL FUNCTION ... but that isn't what the Constitution says, and I did not run for President of the United States to fill that office in that way ...."
[can be heard, starting around 10:30 here]
SO, WHAT ARE THOUGHTS ON THE INTENTIONS BEHIND THOSE WORDS?
Was he LOOSELY using the term "Honorary Chairman of a Great Fraternal Organization", or was he (in some way deliberately) damning a common notion (in certain political circles) that the President should act as the CEREMONIAL head of the Masonic Fraternity ? You know, given how many of our great presidents were Freemasons and all ...
I dunno.
I KNOW this is the wrong place to ask this, as I'll just get the tinfoil hat assertions ... but I was genuinely curious what others may have to say about this seemingly off-the-cuff, and to me at least, implying a great deal more than is actually said, comment.
Was this just "poor" wording, or did he MEAN it ???
I just had a PM convo with someone regarding JFK, and it caused me to bring up the following statement by JFK, which was on the topic of the opinion in some circles regarding Kennedy's desire to get steel companies to quit colluding to raise the price of steel, which he thought ran contrary to public interest ...
anyhow, although the topic at hand was really, "should the president be involved in a fight with business over prices", I thought the words used in his speech were of interest, and I here question his intended meaning:
"Now I know there are some people who say that this isn't any business of the President of the United States ... and [fumbles] who believe that the President of the United States should be the HONORARY CHAIRMAN OF A GREAT FRATERNAL ORGANIZATION, AND CONFINE HIMSELF TO CEREMONIAL FUNCTION ... but that isn't what the Constitution says, and I did not run for President of the United States to fill that office in that way ...."
[can be heard, starting around 10:30 here]
SO, WHAT ARE THOUGHTS ON THE INTENTIONS BEHIND THOSE WORDS?
Was he LOOSELY using the term "Honorary Chairman of a Great Fraternal Organization", or was he (in some way deliberately) damning a common notion (in certain political circles) that the President should act as the CEREMONIAL head of the Masonic Fraternity ? You know, given how many of our great presidents were Freemasons and all ...
I dunno.
I KNOW this is the wrong place to ask this, as I'll just get the tinfoil hat assertions ... but I was genuinely curious what others may have to say about this seemingly off-the-cuff, and to me at least, implying a great deal more than is actually said, comment.
Was this just "poor" wording, or did he MEAN it ???
If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
I could ask a Dr. of Political Science if you want.
Edit: After more thought I think it might be a put down to Dwight Eisenhower.
Hey P,
can you explain the reasoning behind your thought re: Eisenhower in the Edit?
Eisenhower is someone I wish i could get a better understanding of as a person ... not just the war hero crap you see on History channel all the time. Notably, I don't understand why he made that infamous farewell address warning against the military industrial complex. This guy was right wing hawk and a war hero. Why was he so emphatically warning AGAINST "his" system towards the end of his career? He is just as much of an enigma to me as JFK.
Regarding the original topic, i still think it's a hilarious (even if accidental) indictment of the way things work. lol. I guess maybe in Kennedy's day the workings of not-so-infamous fraternal organizations were more generally understood, and reference\metaphor concerning "Honorary Chairman" would be understood by the masses ...
to me, looking back, it seems like he is just slamming the notion that the President is just a puppet to the Masons, et al.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Statement on the Steel Crisis
News Conference
April 11, 1962
http://www.networker.www3.50megs.com/jfk14.html
Simultaneous and identical actions of United States Steel and other leading steel corporations increasing steel prices by some $6 a ton constitute a wholly unjustifiable and irresponsible defiance of the public interest. In this serious hour in our Nation's history when we are confronted with grave crises in Berlin and Southeast Asia, when we are devoting our energies to economic recovery and stability, when we are asking reservists to leave their homes and their families for months on end and servicemen to risk their lives--and four were killed in the last two days in Vietnam asking union members to hold down their wage requests at a time when restraint and sacrifice are being asked of every citizen, the American people will find it hard, as I do, to accept a situation in which a tiny handful of steel executives whose pursuit of private power and profit exceeds their sense of public responsibility can show such utter contempt for the interests of 185 million Americans.
If this rise in the cost of steel is imitated by the rest of the industry, instead of rescinded, it would increase the cost of homes, autos, appliances, and most other items for every American family. It would increase the cost of machinery and tools to every American businessman and farmer. It would seriously handicap our efforts to prevent an inflationary spiral from eating up the pensions of our older citizens, and our new gains in purchasing power.
It would add, Secretary McNamara informed me this morning, an estimated $1 billion to the cost of our defences, at a time when every dollar is needed for national security and other purposes. It would make it more difficult for American goods to compete in foreign markets, more difficult to withstand competition from foreign imports, and thus more difficult to improve our balance of payments position, and stem the flow of gold. And it is necessary to stem it for our national security, if we're going to pay for our security commitments abroad. And it would surely handicap our efforts to induce other industries and unions to adopt reasonable price and wage policies.
The facts of the matter are that there is no justification for an increase in steel prices. The recent settlement between the industry and the union, which does not even take place until July 1st, was widely acknowledged to be noninflationary, and the whole purpose and effect of this Administration's role, which both parties understood, was to achieve an agreement which would make unnecessary any increase in prices. Steel output per man is rising so fast that labor costs per ton of steel can actually be expected to decline in the next 12 months. And in fact, the acting Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics informed me this morning that, and I quote, "employment costs per unit of steel output in 1961 were essentially the same as they were in 1958."
The cost of the major raw materials, steel scrap and coal, has also been declining, and for an industry which has generally been operating at less than two-thirds of capacity, its profit rate has been normal and can be expected to rise sharply this year in view of the reduction in idle capacity. Their lot has been easier than that of one hundred thousand steel workers thrown out of work in the last 3 years. The industry's cash dividends have exceeded $600 million in each of the last 5 years, and earnings in the first quarter of this year were estimated in the February 28th Wall Street Journal to be among the highest in history.
In short, at a time when they could be exploring how more efficiency and better prices could be obtained, reducing prices in this industry in recognition of lower costs, their unusually good labor contract, their foreign competition and their increase in production and profits which are coming this year, a few gigantic corporations have decided to increase prices in ruthless disregard of their public responsibilities.
The Steelworkers Union can be proud that it abided by its responsibilities in this agreement, and this Government also has responsibilities which we intend to meet. The Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission are examining the significance of this action in a free, competitive economy. The Department of Defence and other agencies are reviewing its impact on their policies of procurement. And I am informed that steps are under way by those members of the Congress who plan appropriate inquiries into how these price decisions are so quickly made and reached and what legislative safeguards may be needed to protect the public interest.
Price and wage decisions in this country, except for a very limited restriction in the case of monopolies and national emergency strikes, are and ought to be freely and privately made. But the American people have a right to expect, in return for that freedom, a higher sense of business responsibility for the welfare of their country than has been shown in the last 2 days.
Some time ago I asked each American to consider what he would do for his country and I asked the steel companies. In the last 24 hours we had their answer.
Im kidding
initial intent of freemasons is to protect "human" interest by building and shaping the world and finding others capable of doing this ...it is not supposed to be in their own interest or King of the Mountain power play ...
What is a man's integrity worth? Cave to pressure to just for the few or to do what is right for the many? Power in the hands of the few used unwisely for their own self rather than for everyone.
Eisenhower was a more laid back president that didn't get a whole lot done. Built the highways, and other things I believe but overall didn't accomplish a lot. Why? Because he didn't understand that being a president is a lot different than being a military general. There are more checks and balances and people aren't always going to do exactly what you tell them to do. In my opinion, Eisenhower was a great general, but a pretty average to below average president. I haven't studied how his term ended, just how he interacted with advisors and such in the White House.
Ultimately, JFK wanted to be something other than that... He wanted to be a strong and forceful president. He wanted to get things done. Something JFK succeeded in and also failed in. His assassination ruined any chances for us to see what he really could have done... We probably were going to pull out of Vietnam too as Kennedy had plans to do so.